Forty percent of the crops grown in the United States contain their genes. They produce the world’s top selling herbicide. Several of their factories are now toxic Superfund sites. They spend millions lobbying the government each year. It’s time we take a closer look at who’s controlling our food, poisoning our land, and influencing all three branches of government. To do that, the watchdog group Food and Water Watch recently published a corporate profile of Monsanto.

Patty Lovera, Food and Water Watch assistant director, says they decided to focus on Monsanto because they felt a need to “put together a piece where people can see all of the aspects of this company.”

“It really strikes us when we talk about how clear it is that this is a chemical company that wanted to expand its reach,” she says. “A chemical company that started buying up seed companies.” She feels it’s important “for food activists to understand all of the ties between the seeds and the chemicals.”

Monsanto the Chemical Company

Monsanto was founded as a chemical company in 1901, named for the maiden name of its founder’s wife. Its first product was the artificial sweetener saccharin. The company’s own telling of its history emphasizes its agricultural products, skipping forward from its founding to 1945, when it began manufacturing agrochemicals like the herbicide 2,4-D.

Prior to its entry into the agricultural market, Monsanto produced some harmless – even beneficial! – products like aspirin. It also made plastics, synthetic rubber, caffeine, and vanillin, an artificial vanilla flavoring. On the not-so-harmless side, it began producing toxic PCBs in the 1930s.

According to the new report, a whopping 99 percent of all PCBs, polychlorinated biphenyls, used in the U.S. were produced at a single Monsanto plant in Sauget, IL. The plant churned out toxic PCBs from the 1930s until they were banned in 1976. Used as coolants and lubricants in electronics, PCBs are carcinogenic and harmful to the liver, endocrine system, immune system, reproductive system, developmental system, skin, eye, and brain.

Even after the initial 1982 cleanup of this plant, Sauget is still home to two Superfund sites. (A Superfund site is defined by the EPA as “an uncontrolled or abandoned place where hazardous waste is located, possibly affecting local ecosystems or people.”) This is just one of several Monsanto facilities that became Superfund sites.

Monsanto’s Shift to Agriculture

Despite its modern-day emphasis on agriculture, Monsanto did not even create an agricultural division within the company until 1960. It soon began churning out new pesticides, each colorfully named under a rugged Western theme: Lasso, Roundup, Warrant, Lariat, Bullet, Harness, etc.

Left out of Monsanto’s version of its historical highlights is an herbicide called Agent Orange. The defoliant, a mix of herbicides 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, was used extensively during the war in Vietnam. The nearly 19 million gallons sprayed in that country between 1962 and 1971 were contaminated with dioxin, a carcinogen so potent that it is measured and regulated at concentrations of parts per trillion. Dioxin was created as a byproduct of Agent Orange’s manufacturing process, and both American veterans and Vietnamese people suffered health problems from the herbicide’s use.

Monsanto’s fortunes changed forever in 1982, when it genetically engineered a plant cell. The team responsible, led by Ernest Jaworski, consisted of Robb Fraley, Stephen Rogers, and Robert Horsch. Today, Fraley is Monsanto’s executive vice president and chief technology officer. Horsch also rose to the level of vice president at Monsanto, but he left after 25 years to join the Gates Foundation. There, he works on increasing crop yields in Sub-Saharan Africa. Together, the team received the National Medal of Technology from President Clinton in 1998.

The company did not shift its focus from chemicals to genetically engineered seeds overnight. In fact, it was another 12 years before it commercialized the first genetically engineered product, recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH), a controversial hormone used to make dairy cows produce more milk. And it was not until 1996 that it first brought genetically engineered seeds, Roundup Ready soybeans, onto the market.

By 2000, the company had undergone such a sea change from its founding a century before that it claims it is almost a different company. In Monsanto’s telling of its own history, it emphasizes a split between the “original” Monsanto Company and the Monsanto Company of today. In 2000, the Monsanto Company entered a merger and changed its name to Pharmacia. The newly formed Pharmacia then spun off its agricultural division as an independent company named Monsanto Company.

Do the mergers and spinoffs excuse Monsanto for the sins of the past committed by the company bearing the same name? Lovera does not think so. “I’m sure there’s some liability issues they have to deal with – their various production plants that are now superfund sites,” she responds. “So I’m sure there was legal thinking about which balance sheet you put those liabilities on” when the company split. She adds that the notion that today’s Monsanto is not the same as the historical Monsanto that made PCBs is “a nice PR bullet for them.”

But, she adds, “even taking that at face value, that they are an agriculture company now, they are still producing seeds that are made to be used with chemicals they produce.” For example, Roundup herbicide alone made up more than a quarter of their sales in 2011. The proportion of their business devoted to chemicals is by no means insignificant.

Defenders of Monsanto might reply to the charge that Roundup is no Agent Orange. In fact, the herbicide is viewed as so benign and yet effective that its inventor, John E. Franz, won the National Medal of Technology. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, kills everything green and growing, but according to Monsanto, it only affects a metabolic pathway in plants, so it does not harm animals. It’s also said to break down quickly in the soil, leaving few traces on the environment after its done its job.

Asked about the harmlessness of Roundup, Lovera replies, “That’s the PR behind Roundup – how benign it was and you can drink it and there’s nothing to worry about here. There are people who dispute that.” For example there is an accusation that Roundup causes birth defects. “We don’t buy the benign theory,” continues Lovera, “But what’s really interesting is that we aren’t going to be having this conversation pretty soon because Roundup isn’t working anymore.”

Lovera is referring to “Roundup-resistant weeds,” weeds that have evolved in the past decade and a half to survive being sprayed by Roundup. Nearly all soybeans grown in the United States is Monsanto’s genetically engineered Roundup Ready variety, as are 80 percent of cotton and 73 percent of corn. Farmers spray entire fields with Roundup, killing only the weeds while the Roundup Ready crops survive. With such heavy use of Roundup on America’s farmfields, any weed – maybe one in a million – with an ability to survive in that environment would survive and pass on its genes in its seeds.

By 1998, just two years after the introduction of Roundup Ready soybeans, scientists documented the first Roundup-resistant weed. A second was found in 2000, and three more popped up in 2004. To date, there are 24 different weedsthat have evolved resistance to Roundup worldwide. And once they invade a farmer’s field, it doesn’t matter if his crops are Roundup-resistant, because Roundup won’t work anymore. Either the weeds get to stay, or the farmer needs to find a new chemical, pull the weeds by hand, or find some other way to deal with the problem.

“We’ve wasted Roundup by overusing it,” says Lovera. She and other food activists worry about the harsher chemicals that farmers are switching to, and the genetically engineered crops companies like Monsanto are developing to use with them.

Currently, there are genetically engineered crops waiting for government approval that are made to tolerate the herbicides 2,4-D, Dicamba and Isoxaflutole. (These are not all from Monsanto – some are from their competitors.) None of these chemicals are as “benign” as Roundup. Isoxaflutole is, in fact, a carcinogen. Let’s spray that on our food!

Corporate Control of Seeds

No discussion of Monsanto is complete without a mention of the immense amount of control it exerts on the seed industry.

“What it boils down to is between them buying seed companies outright, their incredible aggressive legal maneuvering, their patenting of everything, and their enforcement of those patents, they really have locked up a huge part of the seed supply,” notes Lovera. “So they just exercise an unprecedented control over the entire seed sector. Monsanto products constitute 40 percent of all crop acres in the country.”

Monsanto began buying seed companies as far back as 1982. (One can see an infographic of seed industry consolidation here.) Some of Monsanto’s most significant purchases were Asgrow (soybeans), Delta and Pine Land (cotton), DeKalb (corn), and Seminis (vegetables). One that deserves special mention is their purchase of Holden’s Foundation Seeds in 1997.

George Naylor, an Iowa farmer who grows corn and soybeans, calls Holden’s “The independent source of germplasm for corn.” Small seed companies could buy inbred lines from Holden’s to cross them and produce their own hybrids. Large seed companies like Pioneer did their own breeding, but small operations relied on Holden’s or Iowa State University. But Iowa State got out of the game and Monsanto bought Holden’s.

Monsanto’s tactics for squashing its competition are perhaps unrivaled. They use their power to get seed dealers to not to stock many of their competitors products, for example. When licensing their patented genetically engineered traits to seed companies, they restrict the seed companies’ ability to combine Monsanto’s traits with those of their competitors. And, famously, farmers who plant Monsanto’s patented seeds sign contracts prohibiting them from saving and replanting their seeds. Yet, to date, U.S. antitrust laws have not clamped down on these practices.

With the concentrated control of the seed industry, farmers already complain of lack of options. For example, Naylor says he’s had a hard time finding non-genetically engineered soybean seeds. Most corn seeds are now pre-treated with pesticides, so farmers wishing to find untreated seeds will have a tough time finding any. Once a company or a handful of companies control an entire market, then they can choose what to sell and at what price to sell it.

Furthermore, if our crops are too genetically homogenous, then they are vulnerable to a single disease or pest that can wipe them out. When farmers grow genetically diverse crops, then there is a greater chance that one variety or another will have resistance to new diseases. In that way, growing genetically diverse crops is like having insurance, or like diversifying your risk within your stock portfolio.

Food and Water Watch Recommendations

At the end of its report, Food and Water Watch lists several recommendations. “There are a lot of ways that government policy could address the Monsanto hold on the food supply,” explains Lovera. “The most important thing is that it’s time to stop approval of genetically engineered crops to stop this arms race of the next crop and the next chemical.”

A third recommendation Lovera hopes becomes a reality is mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. “If we had that label and we put that information in consumers’ hands, they could do more to avoid this company in their day-to-day lives,” she says.

In the meantime, all consumers can do to avoid genetically engineered foods is to buy organic for the handful of crops that are genetically engineered: corn, soybeans, canola, cotton, papaya, sugar beets, and alfalfa.

But now the situation is getting even more insane than you could have imagined: the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) have filed a petition with the FDAasking the FDA to alter the definition of “milk” to secretly include chemical sweeteners such as aspartame and sucralose.

Importantly, none of these additives need to be listed on the label. They will simply be swept under the definition of “milk,” so that when a company lists “milk” on the label, it automatically includes aspartame or sucralose. And if you’re trying to avoid aspartame, you’ll have no way of doing so because it won’t be listed on the label.

This isn’t only for milk, either: It’s also for yogurt, cream, sour cream, eggnog, whipping cream and a total of 17 products, all of which are listed in the petition at FDA.gov.

As the petition states:

IDFA and NMPF request their proposed amendments to the milk standard of identity to allow optional characterizing flavoring ingredients used in milk (e.g., chocolate flavoring added to milk) to be sweetened with any safe and suitable sweetener — including non-nutritive sweeteners such as aspartame.

This is all being done to “save the children,” we’re told, because the use of aspartame in milk products would reduce calories.

Milk industry specifically asks to HIDE aspartame from consumers

Astonishingly, the dairy industry is engaged in extreme doublespeak logic and actually arguing that aspartame should be hidden from consumers by not listing it on the label. Here’s what the petition says:

IDFA and NMPF argue that nutrient content claims such as “reduced calorie” are not attractive to children, and maintain that consumers can more easily identify the overall nutritional value of milk products that are flavored with non-nutritive sweeteners if the labels do not include such claims. Further, the petitioners assert that consumers do not recognize milk — including flavored milk — as necessarily containing sugar. Accordingly, the petitioners state that milk flavored with non-nutritive sweeteners should be labeled as milk without further claims so that consumers can “more easily identify its overall nutritional value.”

In other words, hidingaspartame from consumers by not including it on the label actually helps consumers, according to the IDFA and NMPF!

Yep, consumers are best served by keeping them ignorant. If this logic smacks of the same kind of twisted deception practiced by Monsanto, that’s because it’s identical: the less consumers know, the more they are helped, according to industry. And it’s for the children, too, because children are also best served by keeping them poisoned with aspartame.

Consumers have always been kept in the dark about pink slime, meat glue, rBGH and GMOs in their food. And now, if the IDFA gets its way, you’ll be able to drink hormone-contaminated milk from an antibiotics-inundated cow fed genetically modified crops and producing milk containing hidden aspartame. And you won’t have the right to know about any of this!

The FDA confirms this “secret” status of aspartame, stating, “If the standard of identity for milk is amended as requested by petitioners, milk manufacturers could use non-nutritive sweeteners in flavored milk without a nutrient content claim in its labeling.”

FDA requests comments

This is a clue to stop drinking processed milk and milk products altogether

There’s a bigger story here than just the industry hoping to get FDA approval to secretly put aspartame in milk products while not listing aspartame on the label.

The bigger question is this: If an industry is pushing to hide aspartame in its products, what else is it already hiding?

How about the pus content of its dairy products? How about its inhumane treatment of animals who are subjected to torture conditions and pumped full of genetically engineered hormones? How about the fact that homogenization and pasteurization turn a whole food into a dietary nightmare that promotes obesity, autoimmune disorders and cardiovascular disease?

There are lots of dirty little secrets in the dairy industry of course, and that doesn’t even get into the secret closed-door conversations to encourage the FDA to destroy the competition of raw milk.

The only rational answer to all this is to stop buying and consuming processed dairy products, period!

I gave up ALL milk products many years ago and have never looked back. I drink almond milk, not pus-filled pasteurized cow’s milk. (Click here for a recipe to make your own almond milk at home.) I don’t eat yogurt. If I want probiotics, I get them from tasty chewable probiotics supplements such as Sunbiotics. I parted ways with processed dairy products many years ago, and as a result, my cardiovascular health, skin health, digestive health and stamina have all remained in outstanding shape.

There’s also a philosophical issue here: Don’t buy products from an industry that habitually LIES about everything. The dairy industry is like a mafia. They actively seek to destroy the competition, keep consumers ignorant and monopolize the market. They run highly deceptive ads with ridiculous claims like, “drinking milk helps you lose weight” and other nonsense.

The U.S. dairy industry is steeped in deception at every level, and now they want you and your children to unknowingly drink aspartame that’s secretly blended into the product.

The dairy industry is to food as Lance Armstrong is to sports. It’s all a big lie, laced with secret chemicals and false claims.

Sources for this article:
This petition was originally brought to our attention by a reader who says it was covered on Activist Post. I haven’t yet read that article but may update this article with a link to that article once I identify the URL.

Proven Unsafe But FDA-Approved: Are YOU Still Consuming This Man-Made Poison

Americans drink more soda than anyone else on the planet — well over 700 eight-ounce servings each year, on average, and an increasing amount of it is diet soda.

They might be more reluctant to do so if they knew about the safety questions still surrounding aspartame. A number of scientists responding expressed major concerns about aspartame’s safety at the time of its approval, and even more indicated areas where they believed more research is needed on aspartame to resolve their concerns — research on areas such as neurological functions, brain tumors, seizures, headaches, and adverse effects on children and pregnant women.

Grist reports:

“In a 1996 survey, Ralph G. Walton … looked at 166 peer-reviewed studies on aspartame undertaken between 1980 and 1985. He found that all 74 of the studies funded by the industry found no adverse effects from aspartame, while 84 of the 92 independently funded articles did find bad effects.”

Aspartame is the ingredient found in NutraSweet, It is also found in Equal, Spoonful, Equal Measure, AminoSweet, Benevia, NutraTaste, Canderel, and many popular “diet” sodas. This chemical is currently on the ingredient list of nearly 6,000 products worldwide. But since it was approved for use as a food additive in 1981, it has been dogged by complaints about its safety.

Was aspartame ever proven safe for human consumption before it gained FDA approval as a food additive?

Not according to Dr. John Olney, a researcher at Washington University in Saint Louis who first began studying aspartame in 1970. Dr. Olhney believes aspartame should not be on the market today “because it hasn’t been demonstrated to be safe.” Also in agreement with Dr. Olney are the FDA’s own investigations into the chemical from 1975 to 1980.

When the FDA was presented with Dr. Olney’s research, they assigned an outside public board of inquiry the task of deciding if aspartame should be allowed for human consumption. In 1980, the doctors on that board unanimously ruled that aspartame should not go on the market. An internal FDA panel concluded the same thing in 1980.

According to the FDA Chairman at that time, Dr. Gere Goyan, his next recommendation was to set up another FDA committee to study aspartame, composed people who played no previous part in the former studies of aspartame. Dr. Gere Goyan never saw the results of that 1980 FDA internal study, because he was forced to step down as FDA Chairman the day Ronald Reagan took office on January 21, 1981.

His replacement? Dr. Arthur Hill Hayes.

Dr. Hayes is notable for two reasons. First, he had no previous history of dealing with the science of food additives. Second, he was apparently hand picked to head the FDA by a prominent member of Ronald Reagan’s political transition team, Donald Rumsfeld. Yes, the same Donald Rumsfeld who led the United States into the multi trillion dollar wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as Secretary of Defense during the Bush presidency. But in 1981, Rumsfeld had a different title: CEO of the G.D Searle company, the company that owned the patent on aspartame.

One of Dr. Arthur Hill Hayes first acts as FDA Chairman was granting aspartame approval for use in dry goods. Incidentally, one of Hayes’ last acts in office as FDA Chairman was to approve aspartame for use in beverages.

So was aspartame approved because studies ever showed it was safe for human consumption? Or was it approved thanks to the political influence of Donald Rumsfeld?

According to former Sentator Howard Metzenbaum, who reviewed the FDA’s approval process of aspartame in the Senate in 1987, “I think there were a lot of politics involved in its being approved.” Research scientist Dr. Olney is even more blunt, “the issue (aspartame) is really not an issue of science, it’s an issue of politics.”

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

So much has been written and said about the FDA approval process in the case of aspartame, as well as subsequent widespread reports of adverse reactions, related degenerative diseases and neurological afflictions associated with aspartame, it’s a wonder anyone still uses ANY product containing this potent neurological poison.

Americans consume close to 50 billion liters of soda per year, which equates to roughly 216 liters, or about 57 gallons per person, much of this in the form of diet soda loaded with aspartame. People are no doubt still opting for this toxic synthetic chemical because of the mistaken belief that drinking diet soda will help fight weight gain.

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why Coca-Cola has to spend $3 billion a year on marketing? Could it be because they want you “feel good” about their products and not think about the actual ingredients?

Now let’s take a closer look at the politics behind the FDA’s approval of aspartame, and the reason the FDA and politicians have a very real financial incentive to keep aspartame available for human consumption. Along with what the scientific studies not funded by the aspartame or the diet soda industry actually reveal about this toxic neurological poison.

Since its Discovery, Aspartame has Been Linked to Brain Tumors

Dr. Adrian Gross, the FDA’s toxicologist who examined the aspartame research initially presented to the FDA by G.D. Searle, was “absolutely shocked” at the evidence according to Dr. Russell Blaylock, a retired neurosurgeon, showing “an enormous increase in tumors, particularly brain tumors.”

“And of course that’s exactly what we’re seeing now is this tremendous increase in brain tumors in this country. Which is completely unexplained by the neurological profession,” continues Dr. Blaylock.

Dr. Blaylock has written three books about the health dangers of excitotoxins (aspartame and MSG are excitotoxins), but has never been sued by the artificial sweetener industry over the facts he’s brought to light about the dangers of using these synthetic man-made toxic chemical sweeteners. Why hasn’t the aspartame industry gone after him legally? Or after me for that matter, for my expose on artificial sweeteners called “Sweet Deception”?

“They all realized that they couldn’t answer my arguments. So they left me alone. They’re afraid that if it comes to a big standoff between me and them, they’re going to lose. What they’re doing is the old ploy of just ignoring and hoping it will go away. Of course, they put pressure on magazines, journals and newspapers not to interview me. They are trying to keep me in the shadows where they hope most people don’t hear anything I have to say. It only works for so long.”

In 1975 the FDA came to the conclusion that aspartame should not be allowed on the market. They requested that further studies be conducted. The FDA’s next move was to set up a public board of inquiry composed of outside experts to investigate the safety of aspartame, and in 1980 that board unanimously rejected aspartame’s request for approval. According to a 60-Minutes story on aspartame, another internal FDA panel convened in 1980 also rejected aspartame for approval.

The Dangers of Aspartame

So it was three strikes against aspartame at this point, four strikes if you count the Bressler Report. This report was compiled in 1977 after FDA scientists looked into the field studies conducted on aspartame. The Bressler Report uncovered fraud and manipulation of data so serious that the FDA forwarded their files to the Chicago US Attorney’s office for prosecution.

How bad were the alleged crimes committed by G. D. Searle in an attempt to manipulate the safety studies on aspartame? Here is just one example contained in the Bressler Report:

“According to the FDA themselves, Searle, when making their presentation to the FDA, had willfully misrepresented the facts, and withheld some of the facts that they knew would possibly jeopardize the approval.”

Metzenbaum’s staff investigated the aspartame approval process in 1987. He goes on to explain that:

“FDA officials were so upset they sent the file to the US Attorney’s office in Chicago for the purposes of presenting it to the grand jury as to whether or not there should be indictments. But it wasn’t presented. It was delayed.”

Samuel Skinner, the U.S. attorney who led the grand jury probe ended up withdrawing from the case when he entered into job discussions with Searle’s Chicago law firm, Sidley & Austin – a job he later accepted. Subsequently, the investigation stalled until the statute of limitation ran out, at which point the investigation against Searle was dropped.

For more details on the story of how aspartame made it through the FDA approval process despite warning signs of potential health hazards and alleged scientific fraud, please watch the 60-Minutes report, as Wallace does a nice job of summarizing an otherwise long story.

So the results of the scientific data were fairly clear up until 1980: Aspartame was a dangerous, brain tumor causing man-made poison and the company trying to get it into the food supply was recommended for prosecution by the FDA. You would think that would be the end of aspartame, right?

Not by a long shot.

Aspartame Finally Receives FDA Approval

So it was four strikes against aspartame, but Searle had a blockbuster product on its hands that was sure to lead to millions of dollars in profits. So what did the CEO of the company do?

But even with a friendly new FDA Chairman in place, the agency still rejected aspartame for approval by a 3-2 margin. What reprehensible, bordering on criminal action did Chairman Hayes do next? He added a sixth member to the approval board, who voted in favor of aspartame. Then, with a 3-3 tie on the issue, Chairman Hayes himself broke the deadlock with his own vote of approval for aspartame.

So he packed the board and then used his own vote as a tie-breaker. All apparently perfectly legal… And one of Hayes’ last acts in office before he left the FDA in1983 amid accusations that he was accepting corporate gifts for political favors, was to approve aspartame for use in beverages. Does this sound to you like a man-made synthetic chemical that should have ever been allowed into the world’s food supply?

If the FDA Keeps Aspartame on the Market, it Must be Safe, Right?

Once allowed on the market, the aspartame industry quickly became very profitable, creating a new multi-million dollar source of funds to influence the politicians in charge of overseeing and regulating food safety.

According to the video above, Searle and later Monsanto (who purchased the rights to aspartame), have spent thousands of dollars influencing the politicians who have been influential to keeping aspartame on the market, despite this toxic chemical being the number one source of side-effect complaints to the FDA, with over 10,000 complaints filed and over 91 symptoms documented that are related to its consumption.

This video will familiarize you with some of the terrifying side-effects and health problems you could encounter if you consume products containing this chemical. Unfortunately, aspartame toxicity is not well-known by doctors, despite its frequency. Diagnosis is also hampered by the fact that it mimics several other common health conditions, such as:

Multiple sclerosis

Parkinson’s disease

Alzheimer’s disease

Fibromyalgia

Arthritis

Multiple chemical sensitivity

Chronic fatigue syndrome

Attention deficit disorder

Panic disorder

Depression and other psychological disorders

Lupus

Diabetes and diabetic complications

Birth defects

Lymphoma

Lyme disease

Hypothyroidism

So why is aspartame still on the market? In all likelihood, it was allowed on the market and remains on the market for political and economic reasons. According to Former Senator Metzembaum,

“I think the Chairman of the FDA (Hayes) wound up having some sort of economic relationship, beneficial to himself, with Searle Manufacturing, who at that time owned the rights to aspartame.”

And what about Donald Rumsfeld? Did he benefit financially from the approval of aspartame? He reportedly received a $12 million bonus when he left G.D. Searle, no doubt related to his ability to gain regulatory approval for what until 1981 had been a toxic poison that caused brain tumors in laboratory rats.

Are You Now the Lab Rat?

The answer unfortunately is yes, if you consume any of the more than 6,000 products that contain aspartame. And aspartame is not just in the food supply, it’s also added to pharmaceutical drugs to sweeten them. We are now beginning to see an explosion of unexplained brain tumors worldwide. Is it related to aspartame? This is certainly a possibility, as according to Dr. John Olney, “aspartame hasn’t been demonstrated to be safe.”

The “Real-World” Case of Edith Johnson

This issue isn’t a merely a theoretical debate about food safety versus politics, or about an industry poisoning the world for the sake of profits. This issue is about real people in the real world ingesting a potent neurotoxin on a daily basis, and the damage aspartame is causing to real people.

“I was horrified, I was panic stricken, I was scared to death,” says Edith Johnson in the video above. “Within a matter of moments I went completely blind.”

Edith is talking about the experience she had while drinking a cup of low-calorie hot chocolate. “All of a sudden I couldn’t see. My eyes went out of focus. I think it’s very deliberately because of aspartame.” Continues Edith, “they had no right to market it (aspartame). My message to people is to drink water. You don’t need aspartame in your life.”

The “Real-World” Case of Kate Randall

Kate Randall, also featured in the video above, drank nine Diet Cokes a day for five years and developed a twitch in her eye that several doctors could not explain, although the doctors did apparently rule aspartame out as a cause of the afflictions.

“I started popping in my hands and twitching in my feet. My legs, my knees, my upper legs and shoulders and arms and everywhere. My chin, neck and temples started to twitch.”

All of the tests the doctors ran came back negative, so she decided to do her own research into her strange symptoms.Continues Kate, “I absolutely believe that it (aspartame) was (responsible for) the breakdown of my health for two years.”

What would Kate like to tell people about aspartame?

“Avoid it.”

The Trouble with the Phenylalanine and Aspartic Acid in Aspartame

Aspartame is a synthetic chemical composed of three ingredients – two amino acids and a methyl ester bond. The amino acids are phenylalanine and aspartic acid, two common components of many foods that are usually completely safe for consumption. But not in the case of aspartame.

Why?

Forgetting for a moment that aspartame is metabolized inside your body into both wood alcohol (a poison) and formaldehyde (which embalms tissue and is not eliminated from your body through the normal waste filtering done by your liver and kidneys), the trouble with the component parts of aspartame is one of volume.

In a normal protein like meat, fish or eggs, phenylalanine and aspartic acid comprise 4-5 percent each of the total amino acid profile. This is how nature intends the human body to encounter these two amino acids and there is nothing wrong with these substances if they occur naturally in a proper balance with other amino acids.

But in aspartame the ratio of these two amino acids is 50 percent phenylalanine and 40 percent aspartic acid (with 10 percent methyl ester bond, aka wood alcohol, a known poison). In other words, on a percentage basis this is a massive quantity of two unnaturally isolated amino acids that are simply not found in this ratio in nature, bonded together by a known poison.

The result of this chemical cocktail is a sweet tasting neurotoxin. As a result of its unnatural structure, your body processes the amino acids found in aspartame very differently from a steak or a piece of fish. The amino acids in aspartame literally attack your cells, even crossing the blood-brain barrier to attack your brain cells, creating a toxic cellular overstimulation, called excitotoxicity. MSG is also an excitotoxin, and works synergistically with aspartame to create even more damage to your brain cells.

This is how aspartame causes brain tumors. Adding to the problem, according to Dr. Blaylock:

“Excitotoxins have been found to dramatically promote cancer growth and metastasis. In fact, one aspartame researcher noticed that, when cancer cells were exposed to aspartame, they became more mobile, and you see the same effect withMSG. It also causes a cancer cell to become more mobile, and that enhances metastasis, or spread. These MSG-exposed cancer cells developed all of these pseudopodians and started moving through tissues.“

Aspartame Included on the EPA’s Potentially Dangerous Chemicals List!

As rates of learning disabilities, autism and related neurological disorders like lupus and MS skyrocket in the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing to release a roster of the pollutants likely to contribute to these or other neurological disorders. Aspartame has been included on this list.

In an ongoing, three-year effort, an EPA team has determined which developmental neurotoxicants — chemicals that damage a fetal and infant brain — may pose the biggest risk to the American public.

Aspartame, an artificial sweetener found in sodas, and in other foods and drinks;

Bisphenol A, a chemical widely used in consumer goods, including the resin lining of most food and beverage cans; products made from polycarbonate plastics, which include water bottles and baby bottles, and some dental sealants;

Cadmium, a heavy metal that is used in batteries, coatings and pigments, and is plentiful in tobacco smoke.

PBDEs a class of chemical flame retardants.

Pesticides and insect repellents, including aldicarb, DEET, lindane, (used for lice and scabies), maneb, and paraquat.

Trichloroethylene, formerly used in dry cleaning but still available as a cleaning and degreasing agent and a contaminant in drinking water.

Are You Ready to Ditch Artificial Sweeteners?

You may think you’re making a healthy choice by swapping out sugar for artificial sweeteners but the truth is that you’re not

Your body, when given artificial sweeteners, begins craving sweets because you are not giving it the proper fuel it needs. Finding out your nutritional type will tell you exactly which foods you need to eat to feel full and satisfied. It may sound hard to believe right now, but once you start eating right for your nutritional type, your sweet cravings will significantly lessen and may even disappear.

Meanwhile, be sure you address the emotional component to your food cravings using a tool such as the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT). More than any traditional or alternative method I have used or researched, EFT works to overcome food cravings and helps you reach dietary success. And, if diet soda is the culprit for you, be sure to check out Turbo Tapping, which is an extremely effective and simple tool to get rid of your soda addiction in a short amount of time.

Healthier Alternatives

For those times when you just want a taste of something sweet, there is a healthier alternative called Stevia that you can use in moderation. Stevia is a natural plant and, unlike aspartame and other artificial sweeteners that have been cited for dangerous toxicities, it is a safe, natural alternative that’s has been around for over 1500 years and is ideal if you’re watching your weight, or if you’re maintaining your health by avoiding sugar.It is hundreds of times sweeter than sugar and truly has virtually no calories.

Stevia is my sweetener of choice. However, like most choices, especially sweeteners, I recommend using it in moderation, just like sugar. I prefer to use it in its liquid flavored form and my favorite flavors are English Toffee and French Vanilla. I want to emphasize, however, that if you have insulin issues, I suggest that you avoid sweeteners altogether, including Stevia, as they all can decrease your sensitivity to insulin.

So if you struggle with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes or extra weight, then you have insulin sensitivity issues and would benefit from avoiding ALL sweeteners.

But for everyone else, if you are going to sweeten your foods and beverages anyway, I strongly encourage you to consider using regular Stevia, and toss out all artificial sweeteners and any products that contain them immediately.

Report Adverse Reactions!

By all means, also please forward this article to your friends and loved ones who are still drinking diet sodas and poisoning themselves. You can make a difference on this issue by helping to spread the word. You may help save the life of someone you love, if you can get them off this toxic neurological poison before they too experience strange symptoms that their doctor or doctors simply cannot explain or mistake for something else.

Update 02-25-2013 Why is Obama working so closely with Monsanto? Bill Gates owns 500,000 shares of Monsanto! Bill Gates & Melinda Gates believe and have stated so numerous times that our world is over-populated and needs a “cleansing!” Monsanto is a rogue GMO monopoly hell bent on making money at the expense of human health, species loss & extinction including human beings, environmental ruin to kill off the remaining poor folks left. They are fat cats with fat, phat wallets intent on making humanity a prized possession for those who can afford it the most! What happened to your promise Obama???

The Supreme Court granted Obama’s Solicitor General to argue in support ofMonsanto‘s patents for 10 minutes! Obama opposed GMOs in 2007, and he even stated that Americans had the right to know what is in their food and if it had been genetically modified! He supported GMO labeling of consumers food products of which at least 80% contained GMOs! President Obama has broken his promise to us, and now he appears to be backing Monsanto and their deadly, genetically engineered food crops such as corn and soybeans like Bill Gates has! By the way, supposed humanitarian Bill Gates owns 500,000 shares of Monsanto!

Have you heard the difference between rain forest and a jungle? Well rain forest has a PR while a jungle is just a jungle. That’s the difference between Monsanto and DuPont where DuPont is the rain forest. DuPont is an American chemical company and the world’s third largest producer of chemicals, agrochemicals, polymers, safety materials, electronics and genetically modified seeds. DuPont has its facilities in 70 different counties. After ExxonMobil and Dow, DuPont is the third largest producer of chemicals in the United States.

DuPont was established in 1802 by Eleuthere Irenee Du Pont. Eleuthere Irenee Du Pont ran away from the French revolution and few years after founded DuPont in US by the money he brought from gunpowder machinery from France. By 1811 DuPont was the largest supplier of gunpowder for US military and positioned itself as being the largest supplier of gunpowder during the U.S. Civil War. From 1902 to 1912 DuPont expanded quickly into production of smokeless powder and dynamite. During WW1 40% of explosive used by world powers was supplied by DuPont. Along the way DuPont purchased smaller chemical companies but in 1902 the government took DuPont to court and declared that it was a monopoly that DuPont was dominating the explosive business. Based on the court ruling DuPont had to create both Atlas Powder Company and Hercules Powder Company. DuPont also founded the first two industrial laboratories and improved its military Rifle. In 1914 DuPont invested and got largely involved in automobile industry. From 1920 to 1935 DuPont discovered the first synthetic rubber, nylon, Teflon and polyester.

During WW2 from 1941 to 1945 DuPont was the largest producer of war supplies. DuPont also played an important role in Manhattan Projectand production ofthe first atomic bomb during WW2 that was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. During the same war DuPont produced 4.5 billion pounds of explosive for military. However the horrors of war made DuPont huge profit. From 1950s to 1970s DuPont came up with developing new raw materials like Dacron, Mylar, Lycra, Corfarm and Corian. In 1981 DuPont got into a bidding war with Seagram Company who owned some shares in Conoco to purchase Conoco Inc. Conoco was a major American oil & gas producer and acquisition of Conoco made DuPont one of the top ten US producers of oil and gas. In 1999 DuPont sold its shares to Philips Petroleum Company.

In 1999 DuPont became the largest seed company and producer of hybrid seeds that is used for production ofgenetically modified corn and soy. DuPont is among the four top biotech companies that produce 100% of genetically modified seeds and 60% of world pesticides. The other three biotech companies are Monsanto, Syngenta and Bayer. These top biotech companies are also the largest producers of pesticides in the world. The farmers get subsidy to produce soybeans and corn from the government. Most of these genetically modified cornand soy is used to feed the livestock to fatten them up. 60% of genetically modified corn and 47% of genetically modified soybeans produced in US are fed to livestock.

DuPont pays millions of dollars to food lobbyist to defend its policies; last year DuPont spent $4.8 million for lobbying. However most of these food lobbyists who aggressively peruse the policies of DuPont & Monsanto have worked or are working for the government. In 2007 presidential campaign Obama mentioned that the department of agriculture wasn’t department of agribusiness and promised to put people’s need ahead of financial interests. However some officials in charge of USDA or FDA have been defending, lobbying or working for biotech companies like Monsanto and DuPont:

– Michael Taylor: Former VP in Monsanto who is now the FDA deputy food commissioner

– Tom Vilsack: Former pro-biotechnology governor of Iowa that was assigned as USDA secretary.

– Roger Beachy: Former director of Monsanto who is now director of USDA

– Elena Kagan: Took Monsanto’s side against organic farmers in Roundup Ready Alfalfa case and is now nominated to Supreme Court

– Rajiv Shah: Former director of pro-biotech Gates Foundation who served as USDA secretary

– Linda Strachan: Monsanto’s and DuPont’s representative who is assistant secretary for Department of Agriculture and EPA

– Islam Siddiqui: Former DuPont and Monsanto VP who is now the representative of agriculture negotiator for US trade

– Ramona Romero: Corporate console to DuPont that now is nominated as General Counsel for USDA In 2002 based on the Institute of Political Economy Research DuPont was marked the number one among 100 of contributors to air pollution in the US.

Over the last decade DuPont has been involved in polluting the environment, air and water. In 2002 the residents of Wood County in West Virginia were informed by the spokesman of West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection that their air was contaminated by DuPont’s plant producing toxic chemical called C8 (PFOA). In 2011 researchers found out that there is a correlation betweenhigh blood pressure in pregnant women and C8. This high blood pressure epidemic is usually combined with protein leakage into urine that can cause pre-eclampsia that can threaten the health and life of both mother and baby.

Mid-Ohio valley residents’ water was also contaminated with C8 as a result of nearby DuPont’s plant. Medical studies show that three out of four residents’ of Mid-Ohio Valley have signs of pregnancy induced hypertension and pre-eclampsia due to high exposure to C8. Teflon cookware and other nonstick products are made from PFOA or C8. Although DuPont insist that exposures to C8 chemical known as PFOA doesn’t cause any health issues, studies show that exposure to C8 by consuming food in Teflon cookware that contain C8 over a period of time can cause immune system disorder, thyroid, liver problems and higher cholesterol rate in children.

In 2005 Glenn Evers, the former top DuPont scientist revealed that at least by 1981 DuPont was aware of the health side effects of using paper chemical coating used for food packaging. This dangerous chemical is like C8 that accumulates in people over time and has adverse side effects. In 2006 officials of the United Steelworkers revealed a report that showed DuPont’s safety program called STOP is based on the idea that all injuries are caused by workers. However Mike Wright head of Health Safety and Environmental Department reveals that the last 20 year of investigation shows the root of many catastrophic incidents in DuPont has been related to unsafe hazards, conditions, workplace and failure to file industrial accidents report to OSHA. Based on Ken Test head of USW DuPont Council many of DuPont workers and retirees suffer from being exposed to dangerous toxic substances and chemicals. DuPont and Monsanto are both doing a very good job deceiving the public opinion and covering up their lies, crimes and misdeeds and so far they have been contaminating our environment, air and water with their dangerous chemicals and substances.

Although DuPont and Monsanto agreed to work with each other on sharing their biotechnology on production of genetically modified seeds and crops, Monsanto is now suing DuPont for violation of license agreement between the two companies in 2002. At the same time DuPont is suing Monsanto for its monopoly and restricted agriculture policies that engage no competitors and illegally holding to the details of federal patent about Roundup Ready. DuPont created its own genetically modified soy bean product called Optimum GAT that was meant to compete with Monsanto’s Roundup Ready GM soy product. However the Optimum GAT failed to perform and DuPont added Monsanto’s Roundup into its own existing Optimum GAT. So Monsanto is taking DuPont to court for failing to establish license agreement between the two. However if Monsanto’s patent is enforceable and deemed void anyone could start using Roundup Ready which would be a huge victory for food freedom.

Michael “Monsanto” Tayloris the epitome of the toxic revolving door between industry and government! From representing Monsanto at the law firm King & Spalding, to overseeing Monsanto at theFDA, to working for the USDA & approving unlabeled GMOs, to working for King & Spalding again, to working for Monsanto as their chief lobbyist, to returning to the FDA as Obama’s “Food Czar!” For nearly two decades Michael Taylor has been called out for his close ties to Monsanto. Now, we, the people of the United States of America, are calling him out again, but this time it must be “Out The Door!”

Michael Taylor, former Vice President of Monsanto before being appointed to head the FDA by President Obama, is not working in America’s best interests to protect our food supply from toxic and lethal GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms)! Since 2010 Michael “Monsanto” Taylor has overseen “Food Safety” at the FDA, and since that time millions of U.S. citizens have demanded, petitioned and tried to pass legislation that the FDA require simple and very cheap labeling of genetically engineered foods. Think CA’s Proposition 37 (Monsanto alone spent $45 million to defeat) and WA’s I-522 bill, The People’s Right To Know Genetically Engineered Food Act:http://www.labelitwa.org/read_i_522

Moreoever, 49 countries, including Japan, South Korea, China, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, Russia, the European Union member states, and other key United States trading partners, have laws mandating disclosure of genetically engineered foods on food labels. Many countries have restrictions or bans against foods produced with genetic engineering: http://www.labelitwa.org/read_i_522 That should be a huge warning sign to all Americans that GMOs are unsafe, corporate-regulated, FDA-ignored disasters!

Therefore, our FDA’s “Food Czar,” Michael Taylor, must be immediately terminated by Obama due to dereliction of duty (the shameful failure to fulfill one’s obligations) and total disregard for human safety, for starters! Our government has been overrun by former Monsanto employees, and our president is responsible for correcting this epic mess that he created, starting at the top! It is at least the morally right move for our president to make! The same president who back in 2007 stated before his presidential victory that “Americans have the right to know if their food has been genetically modified!”

Obama must live up to his promise, and he has to right his wrong when he hired Michael Taylor, a major conflict of interest for all Americans who eat food, regardless of party affiliation, whodeserve to know what is in what they are consuming and feeding to their children and grandchildren every day!Give Michael “Monsanto” Taylor his well-earned ‘Pink Slip’ NOW before we suffer even more than what we already have! “What a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive!” – Walter Scott